Talk:The Exigency

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Exigency article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The Exigency was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 13, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 1, 2021.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the animated film The Exigency took thirteen years to make?

Film: American / Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Animation: American / Computer Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the animated film The Exigency took thirteen years to make?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KBIF

Created by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Very interesting article, no major problems, and everything is sourced. I love hearing about projects that take forever to get done. Jon698 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Exigency/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 02:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written and well-structured, however I have grave concerns about the sourcing. The production section is sourced to a combination of material from the official website and various articles from "Renderosity" magazine. I am not convinced this is a reliable, independent source, since it appears they will produce posts on demand for a fee (See e.g. [1]), and it's not clear whether these sponsored posts are explicitly marked as such. The reception section is also sourced to websites that provide paid reviews on-demand such as indyred and uk film review. On these grounds, I'm inclined toward a quick fail. (I'm actually dubious as to whether this even passes WP:GNG) But I want to give an opportunity to respond before I do so. Colin M (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because I find that it passes WP:GNG. It's a film that took 13 years to make. Several reviews have been listed, two of which appear on Rotten Tomatoes, and I used interviews with the creator to expand the article. If you quick-fail the article for the probably paid reviews that's understandable, but the article passes WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a film that took 13 years to make. This is impressive, but doesn't have any bearing on WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). As for the RottenTomatoes indexed reviews, one is from "FilmThreat", which is also pay-to-play. The other is "The Independent Critic", which apparently does do paid reviews, but marks them as such. The review itself does not give an indication of being paid-for, though it does mention that the director "is actively seeking reviews for the film". I remain ambivalent on notability, but in any case, I'm going to close this review as I think it's far from meeting the verifiability and NPOV criteria of GACR. Colin M (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]